1 Social Science Research

Ethics for a Globalizing

World
A Critical Overview of Interdisciplinary
and Cross-Cultural Perspectives
Keerty Nakray

The word ‘ethics’ is derived from the Greek ethos, meaning a person’s char-
acter or disposition, whereas the related term ‘morality’ is derived from the
Latin moralis, meaning custom, manners or character (Kimmel, 2007: 5).
In general, philosophers have drawn a distinction between morals in terms
of concerns of right or wrong, ought or ought not, a good action or a bad
one and the term ‘ethical’ as often used to refer to rules of behavior or
conformity to a code or set of principles (Kimmel, 2007: 5). The systematic
study of ethics is linked to ancient Greek civilization, and it included both
the study of the underlying basis for shaping judgments in specific situations
of what constitutes appropriate conduct and the essence of the judgments
themselves (Preissle, 2008). Some scholars, however, prefer to use the term
‘ethics’ for the study of frameworks for judgment (e.g., consequentialism)
and to use the terms ‘morals’ and ‘morality’ for specific injunctions (e.g., do
no harm) (Preissle, 2008: 273). The distinction between ‘ethics’ and ‘moral-
ity’ is culture specific, as Europeans view it in terms of a binary opposition
between “right and wrong, good and bad and doing the right thing and
avoiding wrong action,” whereas the Chinese see it as balancing comple-
mentary or competing forces, such as the Chinese yin and yang (Preissle,
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

2008: 273). Florence Kellner has eloquently marked out the distinction
between the letter (codes) and the spirit (morality) and sees research as more
about morality than ethics (2002: 32).
Ethics are conceptualized in multifaceted ways: (1) Descriptive ethics pres-
ents the empirical dimensions of social sciences, which address the actual
behavior and the values that guide this behavior. (2) Normative ethics engages
with fundamental questions on the behavior of people that could be cate-
gorized as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ behavior and the distinction between these two
domains of ethics’ ‘is’ and ‘ought’ sides of human behavior. (3) Metaethics
engages with reasoning of moral decisions and the characteristic of moral con-
duct. (4) Applied ethics is based on normative ethics, which forms the basis
for the resolution of moral questions. Social science research ethics is in the
domain of applied ethics (see Kitchener 2000; Kitchner and Kitchner 2009).
In addition, Kitchener and Kitchener (2009) have developed a five-level
model of ethics: the lowest level is of particular behavior (action) and
 6 Keerty Nakray
ordinary moral judgment. The second level is that of ethical rules that gov-
ern the decisions and actions, and this is where the critical evaluative level
begins. The third level is ethical principles that include morals, rules and jus-
tification for their existence. The next level is that of ethical theory, which is
the traditional normative ethics that defines worthwhile behavior. The fifth
and final level is metaethics, which includes the meaning of ethics.
According to Preissle (2008), normative ethics form the basis for research
ethics and it also, within its ambit, further incorporates justice-based ethics,
duty-based or deontological ethics, consequence-based or utilitarian ethics
and virtue-based ethics. Justice-based ethics is an assimilation of human
rights and tenets of fairness to form the underlying framework related to the
treatment of all human beings. It is guided by Aristotelean thought, that is
that “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally” (Velasquez
et al., 1990). In modern societies, justice ethics is defined through statutory
agreements. Duty-based or deontological ethics is based on rules, duties and
obligations that humans have to their fellow humans, their communities and

Meta-Ethics

Ethical Theory

Critical Evaluative Level: Ethical Principles

Ethical Rules (Professional Codes and Laws)

Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

Immediate Level: Particular Cases

Information about the Situation Ordinary Moral Sense

Source: Kitchener and Kitchener (2009)

Figure 1.1 The Model of Ethical Decision Making

 Social Science Research Ethics for a Globalizing World 7
themselves regardless of the consequences. Aristotle developed virtue-based
ethics almost two millennia ago. The basic questions at the center-point
for virtue ethicists are, “How should I live?” “What is the good life?” and
“What are proper family and social values?” This form of ethics is based
on the disposition of individuals to choose virtuous action consciously and
for the value it has and the feelings that are associated with that action,
which are not limited to specific situations but govern the whole life of an
individual (Athanassoulis, 2014). It requires that people intuitively act vir-
tuously toward one another, typically with ideals of character, such as hon-
esty and integrity, respectfulness, wisdom, justice and compassion (Preissle,
2008). The other form of normative ethics influential in research ethics is
consequence or utilitarian ethics. Consequential ethics is decision making
based on the anticipated outcomes of a choice. Utilitarianism, a kind of
consequential ethics developed by British philosophers during the late 18th
to mid-19th centuries, specifies the greatest good for the greatest number
as the best ethical choice (Preissle, 2008). The ethic of care was developed
by the psychologist Carol Gilligan and the philosopher Nel Noddings dur-
ing the last quarter of the 20th century and directs qualitative researchers
to conduct themselves toward others naturally and directly and to sup-
port relationships based on positive feelings and concern for each other
(Gilligan, 2003).

CRITICAL DEBATES IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

ETHICS IN THE 21ST CENTURY

The concept of ‘consent’ can be traced back to Egyptian civilization but

also that of the Greeks and Romans. Documents have been found that
show how the doctor’s intervention had, to some extent at least, first to
be approved by the patient. Plato (law IV) had already foreseen the
problems, the pro- cedures and the modes of information that are, in
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

synthesis, at the root of the principles of the present formula of informed

consent and correlated the practice of the information and consensus with
the quality and social posi- tion of the patient (Mallardi, 2005). Similarly,
the Hippocratic physician was concerned with his own outcomes in terms
of treating patients suc- cessfully, with Christian religion adding the
sacred dimensions of medicine (Mallardi, 2005).
The early origins of the ethics codes for research are usually traced to
the period following the Second World War, as the Nazi’s doctors had
conducted medical experiments in concentration camps under the
conditions of war and genocide that were brought to light during the
Nuremberg war crime trials (see Table 1.1). The perils and horrors of the
Nazi medical experimen- tation resulted in Western powers initiating and
developing the Nuremberg Code, which brought forth the principle of
‘do no harm,’ which consti- tutes the bulwark of bioethics followed by
medical practitioners. Along with
 Table 1.1 The Nuremberg Code

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This

means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent;
should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without
the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching,
or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient
knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved
as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This
latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision
by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature,
duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it
is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected;
and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his
participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining
the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or
engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may
not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of
society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not
random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal
experimentation and knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other
problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance
of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical
and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to
believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those
experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by
the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the
experiment.
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect

the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability,
or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.
The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of
the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty
to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental
state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to
terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in
the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of
him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability,
or death to the experimental subject.

Source: (Shuster, 1997)

 Social Science Research Ethics for a Globalizing World 9
this Code, the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki (World
Medical Association, 1964) informed the basis of modern day bioethics.
There are debates questioning the Nuremberg Code as the quintessential
historical turning point in biomedical research. Prior to the establishment
of the Nuremberg Code, public health officials had excused themselves by
arguing that there were no explicit rules governing medical research on
human beings in Germany during the war period and that research practices
that were followed in Germany were not different from the Allied countries
(Vollmann and Winau, 1996).
As early as 1891, the Prussian minister of the interior issued a directive to
all prisons that tuberculin for the treatment of tuberculosis “must in no case
be used against the patient’s will” (Vollmann and Winau, 1996: 1445).
Initial regulations had been outlined in detail by the Prussian minister for
religious, educational and medical affairs in 1990. In 1898, Albert Neisser,
discoverer of the gonococcus and professor of dermatology and venereology
at the University of Breslau, injected cell-free serum from patients with
syphilis into patients who were mostly working as prostitutes without their
consent. Of these patients, some of them contracted syphilis, but Neisser
argued that the vaccine did work and the women had contracted the disease
as a result of their profession (Vollmann and Winau, 1996). Albert Moll, a
psychia- trist in Berlin, documented six hundred cases of unethical
nontherapeutic research on humans and emphasized the need for informed
consent (Voll- mann and Winau, 1996). Subsequently, in the year 1898, the
public pros- ecutor investigated the case and Neisser was fined by the Royal
Disciplinary Court, with the ruling emphasizing the importance of informed
consent. In 1900, the minister for religious, educational and medical affairs
issued a directive to all hospitals and clinics that all patients should be
informed of the potential negative consequences of medical interventions,
except in the cases of diagnosis, healing and immunization. Informed
consent has been an axiom of post-World War II clinical research and
practice. At the closing of the Nuremberg Medical Trial (NMT) on 19
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

August 1947, the presiding trial judge, Walter Beals, promulgated criteria for
‘permissible medical experi- ments’; although he stressed that “certain types
of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-
defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally,
these criteria were not invoked by the judges in reaching their verdict”
(Weindling, 2001: 38). The judges viewed the Nazi experiments as crimes
against humanity and as war crimes. In fact, eight of the 23 defendants were
acquitted, indicating how complex it was to discriminate between war crimes
and politically sanc- tioned racial atrocities, on the one hand, and legitimate
scientific inquiry, on the other. Moreover, the prosecution was confronted
by a broad range of human experiments, varying greatly in scientific
sophistication—from the crude wounding of limbs, to comparative vaccine
trials. The nature of clini- cal experiments carried out by scientists at the
time could lead to serious aspersions being cast upon the moral and legal
justification of jeopardizing
 human lives for the sake of scientific advancement. Therefore, the Code
played a vital role in assuaging concerns of human safety and ensured legal
safeguards (Weindling, 2001).
The World Medical Association’s (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki
went a step further than the Nuremberg Code and was formally adopted
by the General Assembly of the WMA in 1964. It introduced the concept
of guard- ianship, which is for subjects who are not able to consent for
themselves, such as children; the consent can be provided by their legal
guardians Coun- cil for International Organizations of Medical Sciences
(CIOMS) in collabo- ration with the World Health Organization (WHO),
2002. The Nuremberg Code (1949) and the Declaration of Helsinki
(World Medical Association, 1964) have set the international standards
on scientific research across the world. The Declaration of Helsinki has
been amended five times since its inception (Carlson et al., 2004). The
latest amendment to the Declaration in Edinburgh (2000) stated:
“Research investigators should be aware of the ethical, legal, regulatory
requirements for research on subjects in their own countries as well as
applicable international requirements. No national, eth- ical, legal or
regulatory requirement should be allowed to reduce or elimi- nate any of
the protections for human subjects set forth in this Declaration” (CIOMS
WHO, 2002).
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) (1966) developed policies for
the protection of human subjects based on the Nuremberg and Helsinki
standards. All institutions receiving funding from NIH were required to
establish Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). The IRBs comprise academic
staff members within the university or college, one community representa-
tive and one non-scientist representative. It is the responsibility of the uni-
versity based IRB to carry out appraisals of the proposal and take final
decisions pertaining to rejection and approval on the projects. All medical
and psychological research is expected to conform to these regulations with
some minor exceptions made to social science disciplines such as sociology,
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

anthropology, economics and political science, which follow more subject

specific guidelines (see Ragin and Amoroso, 2011).
The Belmont Report (1978) was written by the US Department of
Health, Education and Welfare (OHRP Archive Office for Human
Research Protection, 1978), and it specifically outlined the following
principles and applications: (i) Respect for Persons: Informed Consent,
(ii) Beneficence: Assessment of Risks and Benefits and (iii) Justice: Fair
Selection of Sub- jects. The report provided a preliminary basis for social
science research ethics as it focused on biomedical and behavioral
research and indicated the need for principles of ethical research for other
forms of research. Unfor- tunately, there was little reflection on this point,
and the principles of the Belmont Report were applied to social science
research. This has resulted in situations where social science researchers
are expected to follow principles
 that might not cohere with their research design and often leads to ethical
dilemmas.
The Belmont Report identified six norms to guide scientific research:

1. Use of a valid research design: Faulty research is not useful to

anyone and is not only a waste of time and money, but also
can- not be conceived of as being ethical in that it does not
contribute to the well-being of the participants.
2. The researcher must be competent to conduct the research.
3. Consequences of the research must be identified: Procedures
must respect privacy, ensure confidentiality, maximize benefits,
and minimize risks.
4. The sample selection must be appropriate for the purposes of
the study, representative of the population to benefit from the
study, and sufficient in number.
5. The participants must agree to participate in the study through
voluntary informed consent—that is, without threat or undue
inducement (voluntary), knowing what a reasonable person in
the same situation would want to know before giving consent
(informed) and explicitly agreeing to participate (consent).
6. The researcher must inform the participants whether harm will
be compensated. (Mertens, 2014: 15)

Few universities arbitrarily established separate IRBs for social scien-

tists. This is not an optimal solution, as following good ethical practices is
directly linked to sound research design and is an outcome of good ground-
ing in social science research methods. The contradictions are evident in the
first principle ‘respect for persons’ which does however take into account
that all research participants such as children or those with developmental
disabilities might not be able to provide consent. This requires that con-
sent is sought from the legal guardian. The second principle of ‘beneficence’
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

includes an assessment of risks and benefits. The question of the social

impacts or direct benefits of any research remains. The third principle ‘jus-
tice’ requires equal distribution of the benefits and burdens of the research.
That is, research participants should gain direct benefits from the research,
and there are five acceptable distribution methods:

(i) to each person an equal share

(ii) to each person according to individual need
(iii) to each person according to individual efforts
(iv) to each person according to the societal contribution
(v) to each person according to merit
(National Institutes of Health, 1974)
 This requires that researchers make a sincere effort to ensure adequate
representation of hard to access people. Research on certain topics, such
as child sexual abuse or domestic violence, is difficult to address as it
does require the participant revisiting tumultuous life events. The process
by itself is inequitable. There are risks involved in undertaking research
stud- ies involving issues related to social justice, as this involves
questioning the existing status quo of society and inevitably implies
changing the power relations (which could imply firing of corrupt leaders
or bringing more women into political governance) (Ragin and Amoroso,
2011).
The Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki were drafted
under the auspices of the American military tribunal, and British officials
were involved covertly as they undertook investigations of the medical
criminals and their victims (Hazelgrove, 2002). The Nuremberg Code had
virtually no impact on the research community or on the medical elite in
Britain. From the perspective of those who met at the Pasteur Institute in
1946 to discuss medical war crimes, it was intended to protect the reputa-
tion of Allied research against the taint of Nazism as well as to provide a
guide for research; and although national and international medical bod-
ies reportedly endorsed it, for leading researchers at the British Postgradu-
ate Medical School and others, it had little relevance (Hazelgrove, 2002).
Harvard professor and anesthesiologist Henry Beecher revealed the use of
injection of live cancer cells into nonconsenting patients and the artificial
induction of hepatitis into institutionalized children (Harkness et al., 2001)
and Maurice Pappworth, a Liverpool born physician, conducted a private
course for membership of the Royal College of Physicians (MRCP) to save
the medical profession from discredit. The Royal College of Physicians took
a reactive stance to Pappworth’s concerns and left it to the discretion of
the individual doctor to decide the levels of risks that the patients could be
exposed to (Hazelgrove, 2002). In 1966, Beecher’s article led to the imple-
mentation of federal rules governing the conduct of human experimenta-
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

tion in the United States, including a clear call for fully informed consent
from research subjects. Henry Beecher was not in favor of institutionalizing
formal rules or the creation of ethics review committees but rather argued
in favor of the “presence of an intelligent, informed, conscientious, compas-
sionate and responsible investigator offered the best protection for human
research subjects” (Harkness et al., 2001: 366). Controversies in research
ethics continue to persist and careful attention to ethics should be part of
every scientist’s approach to research (Hazelgrove, 2002).
History is replete with examples of public outcries against the pursuit
of scientific knowledge carried out with scant concern for the well-being
of all living things. Some other examples include the Tuskegee Syphilis
Trials (1932–1972), Willowbrook Hepatatis Study (1963–1966), Mkultra
Project (1953–1964), Milgram Experiment (1961–1962), Stanford Prison
Experi- ment (1971) and Humphrey’s Tearoom Trade (mid-1960s) (Ragin
and Amoroso, 2011) (see Table 1.2).
 Table 1.2 Case Studies of Ethical Failures in Scientific Research

Tuskegee Syphilis Trials: In the early 1930s, the trials were undertaken under the
US Public Health Service (PHS), which began a study of the long-term effects
of untreated syphilis. For the purposes of the study, 399 African-American
men with syphilis from rural Alabama were enrolled without any consent
or knowledge of being enrolled for the study. In 1947, when penicillin was
invented, it was deliberately not provided to these men, and researchers
continued with their research on long-term consequences. The findings of
the study were published in several journals, and it was only in 1972 that a
newspaper reporter exposed it to the wider public. The researchers had made
conscious efforts to ensure that these research participants did not see a doctor
outside of the study (Reverby, 2008). By this time, over two-thirds of the men
had died from syphilis or syphilis-related complications. In 1997, President
Bill Clinton apologized to the six remaining men from the study and to all
African-Americans. Nearly forty years after the study ended and ten years after
the formal apology, “Tuskegee” still reminds some Black Americans of the
institutional racism deeply embedded in the health-care system and why medical
research should be accountable (Reverby, 2008).
Willowbrook Hepatatis Study (1963–1966): The Willowbrook State School in
Staten Island, New York, housed and cared for mentally disabled children.
Dr. Saul Krugman from the New York University School of Medicine and
his coworkers began conducting hepatitis studies there in 1955 and
continued hepatitis studies there in 1955 and for more than 15 years. The
children from the school were deliberately infected with hepatitis, as there
was a tendency among the children admitted to the school, therefore if
infected under medical supervision the intensity was likely to be less. The
purposeful transmission
of the disease was questioned not only on ethical grounds but also on legal
grounds. The researchers had obtained consent from the parents of each child.
Parents of children who participated early in the study gave consent after
receiving information provided by Willowbrook orally and in writing. One
of the key questions relates to appropriateness of parental consent when the
children received no therapeutic benefit for his or her involvement.
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

Mkultra Project (1953–64): The Central Intelligence Agency’s Project

MKULTRA provided insights into CIA’s misconduct into experimental drug
administration and radiation exposure to unwitting subjects from 1953–64.
The project aimed to protect the CIA operatives and employees from
interrogation techniques and develop drugs and procedure to increase the
efficacy of behavioral modification and interrogation technique on persons of
interest to CIA. The project involved 80 institutions including 44 colleges or
universities as well as hospitals, prisons and pharmaceutical companies
(Horrock 1977). Then CIA Director Richard Helms destroyed all the files of
the project in 1974 (Price 2007).
Milgram Experiment (1961–62): Milgram, a psychologist, studied people’s
obedience to authority. The research participants were paid volunteers who
were informed that the experiment was a learning experiment. They were
informed that the primary motive of the study was to examine obedience to
authority, as it could potentially bias the participants. The participants were

(Continued )
 14 Keerty Nakray
Table 1.2 (Continued)

asked to administer electric shocks to another person with an increasing

voltages (up to 450 volts) if the person does not provide the correct answers
to a question. In the initial experiments 65 percent of the participants were
willing to deliver the final and highest level of shock as s/he had been
instructed by a figure in authority. The victim was in another room and
answered the question through a signal box. The victim was not visible in this
experiment. In the subsequent experiments, participants were subjected to
other conditions such as listening to the cries of the victim or moving the
experiment site out of Yale. Participants reacted varied some of them begged
not to deliver shocks and some of them experienced psychological strain
perhaps because of their defiance and their unwillingness to complete the
experiment or the pain they believed they had previously administered.
Stanford Prison Experiment 1971: Social Psychologist Philip Zimbardo
undertook a study to examine the effects of taking on the role of prisoners or
prison guards on individuals. The Stanford University students were taken as
paid volunteers to be prisoners. The participants were informed that they could
quit the study at any point however they will have to forfeit their payment.
They were informed that there could be some violation of civil rights and
privacy while they are
in the makeshift prison. The nine students who had been randomly selected
were arrested from their homes by actual Palo Alto police officers and were
subjected to the arrest procedures of at the local police station and taken to
the prison in the basement of their campus building. They were subjected to
humiliating procedures which includes harassment and abuse through tactics
such as randomly privileging few over others or waking them in the night
and punishments for contraventions. The experiment was stopped on day 6
of the eight days that it was meant to be carried out when prisoners reported
sadistic
treatment to a visiting researcher. Other researchers who had visited
experiment did not express any dissent to the treatment meted to the students.
Humphrey’s Tearoom Trade (mid-1960s): Laud Humphreys (1970/1975) presents
the results of his mid-1960s dissertation research on men who met in public
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

restrooms for casual sexual encounters. He gained access to these men by

agreeing to be a “watch queen”; that is, a voyeur who would inform the men if
police arrived. Humphreys recorded the license plates of men he had watched
over and also obtained their addresses through police department contacts.
Furthermore, he visited their homes pretending to undertake a market
research project. Humphreys study is highly criticized, as more than half of
the men had closeted their homosexuality.
Source: (Ragin and Amoroso, 2011)

Social Science Research Paradigm and Ethics:

Contemporary Debates
The last three examples in Table 1.2 demonstrate some of the difficult
ethical questions posed and grappled with in social science research. It is
counter- intuitive to delineate research ethics from broader theoretical
and empirical
 Social Science Research Ethics for a Globalizing World 15
debates in social sciences. Ethical decision making is more important than
arbitrarily following rigidly defined ethical protocols (Hill et al., 1995). Nei-
ther is there a binary division between the researchers and researched, as
researcher’s goals, vision and ways of ‘cognitively structuring’ inevitably
give form to research. Ethical decision making depends on researchers being
critically conscious of their own principles, values and commitment to social
justice (Hill et al., 1995). Darley (1980: 15) makes the point with gusto,
reminding us that if we do not do ethical research, “we leave those who are
attempting social change the prey of hucksters who are willing to put forth
undocumented claims based on inadequate evidence” (cited from Israel and
Hay, 2006: 2). Early on, Guba and Lincoln (1989) developed a framework
for the ethical practice of qualitative research based on a revised under-
standing of the researcher-researched relationship. To this end, they put
forth their criteria for rigor as trustworthiness and authenticity, including
balance or fairness (inclusive representation of stakeholders in the process
of the research), ontological authenticity (make respondents aware of their
constructions of reality), educative authenticity (educate others of the reali-
ties experienced by all stakeholder groups), catalytic authenticity (enable
stakeholders to take action on their own behalf) and tactical authenticity
(training participants how to act on their own behalf) (cited from Mertens,
2014: 18).
Table 1.3 depicts the complex evolution of social science research
ethics from traditions of social science debates based on the
epistemology, ontol- ogy, axiology, methodology and methods. Early
origins of social science philosophy can be traced back to the empiricism
of the French and Scottish Enlightenments. David Hume aspired to study
human differences by estab- lishing basic laws that govern the elements
of the human mind, which could explain with some precision human
problems as natural phenomena (Bris- tow, 2010). In this context,
thinkers from Plato (428–327 BCE) to Leibnitz (Gottfried Wilhelm
Baron von Leibniz, 1646–1716) promoted rationalism that is a school of
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

thought that believes that our concepts and knowledge can be achieved
beyond the sense experience. The three theses that form the bulwark of
rationalism include: a) The Intuition/Deduction Thesis pro- poses that
certain hypothesis can be known through intuition, whereas others have
to be deduced through valid arguments. (b) The Innate Knowl- edge
Thesis supposes the existence of innate knowledge of propositions as a
priori, that is, independent of experience and some of these propositions
might come into consciousness through experiences but do not create
new knowledge. (c) The Innate Concept Thesis as some claim is
subsumed within the innate knowledge; that is, a particular instance of
knowledge can be innate only if concepts that comprise that proposition
are innate. The com- peting epistemology was empiricism; that is, all
knowledge is a posteriori dependent upon sense experience (Markie,
2004). For empiricists, such as John Locke (1632–1704), human beings
are born tabula rasa, that is, with a ‘clean slate.’ What we come to know
is the result of our experience written
 Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

Table 1.3 Paradigms: Epistemology, Ontology, Methodology and Methods in Social Science Research

Paradigm/
Type of Values and Ethical
Theory Criteria Form of Theory Narration Protocols

Positivism Ontology: Naïve Realism, Realism.

There is a “real,” objective reality Internal and Logical- Scientific- Extrinsic to the
that is knowable. external deductive. report-aimed research design
Epistemology: Dualistic/Objectivist. validity. explanation, titled toward
The researcher can, and should, Reliability prediction researcher’s
avoid any bias or influence on the and and control. goals rather
outcome. Results, if done well, are objectivity. than participant
true. interests.
Methodology: Quantitative methods Informed consent
based on hypothesis testing. from research
Largely aimed at experiments or participants,
analysis of data. protection of
Methods: Quantitative analysis of identity of
survey or data. participants and
restricted access.
Post-positivism Ontology: Critical Realism—real
reality but only imperfectly and Logical- Hypotheses Extrinsic to the
probabilistically apprehensible. Internal and deducive. tested research project.
There is a “real,” objective external through Informed
reality, but humans cannot know validity. could-be consent and
it Reliability facts or confidentiality.
for sure. and laws
Epistemology: Modified Objectivist. objectivity.
The goal is objectivity, but pure
objectivity is impossible. Results
are “probably” true.
Paradigm/ Type of Values and Ethical
Theory Criteria Form of Theory Narration Protocols
Methodology: Includes both
qualitative and quantitative
methods. Seeks reduction of
bias through qualitative validity
techniques (e.g., triangulation)
Constructivist Ontology: Relativist.Local and
Trustworthiness, Substantive- Interpretative Intrinsic to the
specific constructed and
credibility, formal. case studies, research design
co-constructed realities. All truth
transferability, ethnographic aimed toward
is “constructed” by humans
confirmability. fiction. encouraging
and situated within a historical
participation.
moment and social context.
Critical ethics
Multiple meanings exist of
or participatory
perhaps the same data.
ethics.
Epistemology: Transactional/
subjectivist-created findings.
Researcher and participants are
linked in constructing knowledge
together.
Methodology: Hermeneutical/
Dialectic
Methods: Generally qualitative,
research through dialogue.
Critical Theory Ontology: Historical Realism. Virtual
reality shaped by social, political, Historical Structural theory Qualitative Intrinsic to the
cultural, economic, ethnic and situatedness based in Reports research design
gender values crystallized over and erosion of understand-ing that include aimed at
time. Reality can be understood ignorance. of power reflective mutual learning
but only as constructed relations accounts of experience.
historically and connected to undertaking
power. research.

(Continued )
Table 1.3 (Continued)

Paradigm/ Type of Values and Ethical

Theory Criteria Form of Theory Narration Protocols
Epistemology: Transactional/
subjectivist, value-mediated
findings. Knowledge is mediated
reflectively through the perspective
of the researcher.
Methodology: Dialogic/ Dialectical
Methods: Focused on investigator/
participant dialogue, uncovering
subjugated knowledge and
linking it to social critique
Advocacy/ Ontology: Varied Catalysts to bring Conscientization Communication Participation and
Participatory Epistemology: The distinction about social based toward of dispersal of
between researcher and researched change. individual and participatory research findings
breaks down. Insider knowledge community research are intrinsic to
highly valued. realization of to the such research.
Methods: Works with individuals oppression. stakeholders.
on empowerment and issues that
matter to them. Tends toward
social, cultural or political change
using any appropriate method.
Pragmatism Ontology: Varied. Pragmatists may Bring forth Awareness raising. Communication Ethics of impact
be less interested in what “truth” knowledge with making.
is and more interested in “what that could stakeholders.
works.” contribute to
social change.
Paradigm/ Type of Values and Ethical
Theory Criteria Form of Theory Narration Protocols

Epistemology: Accepts many different

viewpoints and works to reconcile
those perspectives through
pluralistic means.
Methods: Focuses on a real-world
problem, by whatever methods
are most appropriate, and tends
toward changes in practice.

Source: (Creswell, 2009; Guba and Lincoln, 1994: 193–97; 198–99; Lather, 1992)
 20 Keerty Nakray
on that slate (Bernard, 2006). Hume’s (1711–1776) skepticism, based on
empiricist philosophy of knowledge, forms the basis of principles of modern
science. That is, we have to make improvements in existing knowledge, we
are moving toward truth but we can never reach a point to claim absolute
truth (Bernard, 2006). Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) questioned division
between a priori truths and a posteriori truths, he proposed the powerful
idea that a priori truths exist but our perception of truth is based on our
minds’ capabilities to organize sensory experience (Bernard, 2006).
The philosophical principles that formed the basis for scientific revolu-
tion in the 17th century propelled a greater interest in the application of
these principles toward understanding social problems. The leading French
thinker August Comte, founder of sociology, initiated the idea of a posi-
tivist approach to social sciences. Subsequently, Comte was followed by
another influential French scholar Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), whose
epoch-making work Suicide emphasized the role of social facts in shaping
everyday human behavior. Their leading counterparts in Germany, such as
G. F. W. Hegel (1770–1831), focused on dialectical views on varied
social processes, relationships, conflicts and contradictions (Ritzer and
Goodman, 2004). On the contrary, Karl Marx focused solely on the
dialectics of eco- nomic relations, whereas Max Weber introduced
verstehen in the context of study of society, and he understood human
motivations as being the result of a complex juxtaposition of varied
forces, including religion, capitalism, bureaucracy and industrialism.
Foucault provided a radical departure from these perspectives, focusing
on power as emerging from various sources to shape the experiences of
the modern human being. Feminist thinking led to paradigm shifts in the
social sciences, which was otherwise dominated by white, middle-class
thinkers who did little to capture women’s experi- ences. The purpose of
feminist research is to present women’s everyday life experiences as
valuable sources of knowledge toward understanding power hierarchies
in the society (Campbell and Wasco, 2000: 783).
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

Social science research is based on the paradigm that is defined by social

science philosophy and consists of ethics (axiology), epistemological,
ontological and methodological assumptions that guide and direct think-
ing and action (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). In his book The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn (1962) defined “paradigm as a term
related closely to normal science” (p.10). It implies that people committed
to research based on shared paradigms follow the same rules and standards
for scientific practice that are based on previous observations and principles
that have helped solve problems in a particular discipline and facilitate fur-
ther research in terms of definition of problems and hypothesis formula-
tion and the identification of the most suitable empirical research techniques
(Corbetta, 2003).
Ethics is a part of the research paradigm that asks fundamental ques-
tions of morality and value of a particular research project to the
individual researcher and the society (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). Table
1.3 describes
 the intrinsic relationship between epistemology, ontology, axiology
(values and ethics), methodology and methods. Ontology or “theories of
reality” (Lincoln, 2005: 230) and interrogates “what is reality,” that is,
our compre- hension of reality and how to we perceive the world around
us (Letherby, 2003; Walter, 2013: 14). Epistemology refers to the theory
of knowledge and ways of knowing. It is largely unwritten rules of what
can be known, what can be legitmate knowledge and who can be the
knower (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Letherby, 2003). Epistemology and
ontology reflect on whether we are following rationalism or empiricism
or if we have adopted the positivist approach to social science inquiry
(Bernard, 2006). Method- ology is defined based on epistemology and
ontology, whereby methods of inquiry are described and analyzed and
possible challenges and outcomes are predicted. Methods refer to
techniques through which data is collected and analyzed, for example:
interviews, focus group discussions and dis- course analysis. Axiology
refers to the theory of values; as social science researchers, we have to
question our value systems, and the value systems of our institutions
shape our research approach.
Ethics defines justness of research to the participants and its value to
the society. In addition, specific ethical nuances emerge in the context of
research paradigms that have been adopted by the researchers. Positivism
is based on the collection of data from samples that are subjected to tests
of reliability and validity, mathematical analysis and inference drawing.
Positivist research could entail both the collection of large-scale primary
data or analysis of secondary data. The creation of large-scale databases
facilitates several research projects with varying hypothesis and questions.
Anonymity and confidentiality are of primary concerns and also data should
be archived carefully to prevent wrongful interpretation of the data in the
future. The post-positivists have rejected the assumptions of the positivists
about what constitutes the truth, instead believing in the nebulous, com-
plex and unpredictable nature of the social world and thus challenging the
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

notion of ‘good science’ and in doing so attempting to open up alternate

possibilities for knowing (O’Leary, 2007). Usually, post-positivist research
involves studying disadvantaged groups, wherein participation is seen as an
antidote to the unequal power relationships between the researchers and
research participants (Parry et al., 2001).
In the 18th century, Wilhelm Dilthey added to the foundations of inter-
pretivism by arguing that verstehen (understanding) was the goal of
social science research and that the proper topic of social science
research was the lived experiences of humans. He was reacting against
contemporary ideas that the social sciences should emulate the positivist
methods of the natural sciences because humans could be treated as
complex machines. For him, natural reality was not the same as social
reality, and that meant that differ- ent methods of research were needed to
study social reality (Willis, 2007). Constructivism and interpretivism
focuses on the construction of meaning by the research participants of the
social world. It includes the hermeneutic
 circle that is—“constructions of variety of individuals—deliberately cho-
sen so as to uncover widely variable viewpoints are elicited, challenged
and exposed to information and new, more sophisticated ways of inter-
pretation, untile some level of consensus is reached” (Guba and Lincoln:
180–81). It uses the relativist ontological position; that is, understanding
reality that is constructed intersubjectively through experiential and social
learning and transactional epistemology assumes that there is no seperation
between what we know and what we are. That is, the researcher and the
participants are inevitably a part of the same social reality and dialogue
should be the basis for seeking truth. Some of the ethical questions engage
with meaning and value of this research to the target population; seek to
take a departure from existing knowledge and deeply interogate if research
changes us as people (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). This paradigm has ques-
tioned the notion of “value neutrality,” wherein internal and external valid-
ity have been replaced by terms such as ‘trustworthiness’ and ‘authenticity.’
It also builds on antifoundation arguments, while promoting a critical mode
of inquiry to the nature of social oppression, which can rarely be depicted
through single-layered texts and thereby linking research to praxis of social
change (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). Critical ethnography adds another
layer to the social science research, which is defined by researcher’s engage-
ment with political movements to expose social injustice. Researchers state
their politics clearly and work toward social change along with engagement
with the reflexive practice of deep introspection about their own positional-
ity. This is vital to show that we as researchers stand apart from the power
structures that exist around our research participants (Lapan, Quartaroli
and Riemer, 2011). This form of research often raises concerns about aca-
demic validity as it traverses boundaries of academia.
Critical social science in its scope consists of feminist, postcolonial
and even postmodern challenges to oppressive power, as well as the
various interpretations of critical theory and critical pedagogies that are
radically democratic, multilogical and publicly, centrally concerned with
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

human suf- fering and oppression. Being critical requires a radical ethics,
an ethics that is always/already concerned about power and oppression,
even as it avoids constructing power as a new truth (Cannella and
Lincoln, 2011: 81). In their groundbreaking book Real Social Science:
Applied Phronesis, Flyvb- jerg, Landman and Schram questioned the
possibility of social sciences on the lines of natural sciences. They have
viewed social science enquiry as a site of contestations that involves
human consciousness, volition, power and reflexivity and attempts to
build generalizable, predictive models such as those for the natural world
are misplaced and even futile (Flyvbjerg et al., 2012: 1). In this context,
ethical research assumes new meaning that is one wherein researchers
follow the ethics of care toward their partici- pants and also to
themselves through self-reflective research practice (Gibbs et al., 2007).
 Research Training in “Ethics”: Interdisciplinary
and Cross-Cultural Practices
In the context of cross-cultural research, critical research ethics has come
into prominence as it questions social contexts in which research is
carried out is not merely focused on research participants to prevent
further subjec- tification (Sikes, 2013). Growing criticisms of rigidly
defined ethical proto- cols emerges from its original basis in positivism,
wherein it was assumed that information could be elicited from
participants with little consideration to their social contexts (Holliday,
2013). Often students from non-Western cultures perceive ethical
procedures as non-negotiable, which is not actu- ally the case. Ethical
procedures evolve with research, with ingenuity of the researchers and
participants (Moosa, 2013). Therefore, cross-cultural research often
entails a dialogue between the researcher’s objectivity to achieve
academic outcomes against demands of local cultures. This rela- tionship
of subjectivities with a pinch of ‘objectivity’ is a raison d’etre for the
hybridity of universal ethical standards and local ethical environments
(Shamim and Qureshi, 2013).
Most universities in developed economies have adopted the new ethics
paradigms in the form of an Institutional Review Board with a set of cen-
tralized policies, bureaucratic procedures and processes that place limita-
tions on academic freedom to explore the field freely (Boden et al., 2009;
Israel and Hay, 2006). However, much of the focus of these boards has been
reduced to focusing on harm reduction to the research participants rather
than the ethical responsibilities of researchers (Kellehear, 1993). The tradi-
tional impersonal and objective ethical model assumed the separation of the
researcher and the researched, but the new fieldwork being practiced sug-
gests less distance or detachment between the researchers and the researched
and a new ethics or moral imperative that is not yet codified (De Laine,
2000: 4). Similarly, John Johnson and David Altheide (2002: 61) state that
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

“the contemporary focus on ‘research ethics’ is really about issues other

than research ethics” and that “‘Ethics’ has [. . .] collapsed into discourses
of institutional control.” Ethics are peripheral in research training and
usually the thrust of such training is on cleanly laid out methods that are
followed with a few practice sessions on databases and selected computer
software. Textbooks on fieldwork almost exclusively focus on gaining entry,
establishing rapport, building trust and so on, but critics have identified the
step-by-step plan or process as far too simplistic, because fieldwork appears
as a series of resolvable problems when in fact this is not the reality. Each
step in fieldwork is affected by the development of interpersonal contingen-
cies in the setting. Being in the subject’s world means being surrounded
by real-life contingencies as an enduring problem of fieldwork (Gubrium
and Holstein, 1997: 68–9). Contingencies make the researcher vulnerable
and may cause personal stress. The conditions of fieldwork (paradoxes,
 ambiguities and dilemmas) that are qualitative by way of contrast to quan-
titative research inquiry (positivistic-oriented and impersonal) and put the
researcher in direct contact with people to form various types of relation-
ships (power, personal and social) make fieldwork inherently problematic
(Fabian, 1991). Ethical and moral dilemmas are an occupational hazard of
fieldwork that the researcher cannot plan for, but nonetheless, these must
be addressed on the spot, by drawing on values, ideals, ethical codes, moral
and professional standards, intuition and emotions. Researchers require
sensitivity, authenticity, integrity and maturity, perhaps more than in previ-
ous moments of social science, because people are put in contact with others
in more intimate ways (Lincoln, 1995). With regard to sensitive issues, Alty
and Rodham (1998) provide three options: 1. Plan another project entirely.
2. Proceed with caution. 3. Publish and be damned.
Qualitative researchers are further constrained as they might not have
the same opportunities as quantitative researchers in research training, as
qualitative research tends to have greater variations owing to the nature of
research projects, motivating factors underlying these projects and ques-
tions surrounding the emotional and personal trajectories of the researchers.
Advanced qualitative research, such as doctoral research, is further impacted
by power equations between postgraduate students and their supervisors,
as students are dependent on their supervisors for all the preparations for
the research. Unless made aware of their moral and ethical responsibili-
ties, students might not actively seek to carry out their research consciously,
and the questions of ethics can be subsumed in the bureaucratic structure.
This can work against researchers assuming a high moral and ethical stance
(De Laine, 2000: 10). Hammersley (2009) has argued against presence of
ethical standards in social sciences, as it imposes arbitrary conditions on
research, which does not necessarily lead to qualitative improvements in the
insights generated from the study. The key to change, then, is to acknowl-
edge that when the ethics review process takes qualitative research seriously,
the whole research enterprise will stand to benefit (van den Hoonard, 2008).
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES

Alty, A. and Rodham, K. 1998. “The Ouch! Factor: Problems in Conducting Sensi-
tive Research.” Qualitative Health Research 8(2): 275–82.
Athanassoulis, N. 2014. Virtue Ethics. http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/ (accessed
January 1, 2014).
Boden, R. Epstein, D. and Latimer, J. 2009. “Accounting for Ethos or
Programmes for Conduct? The Brave New World of Research Ethics
Committees.” The Socio- logical Review 57(4): 727–49.
Bristow, W. 2010. Enlightenment. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/
(accessed January 1, 2014).
Campbell, R. and Wasco, S. 2000. “Feminist Approaches to Social Science: Epis-
temological and Methodological Tenets.” Journal of Community Psychology
28(6): 29–50.
 Cannella, G. and Lincoln, Y. 2011. “Ethics, Research Regulations, and Critical
Social Science.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by
N. Lincoln and Y. Denzin, 81–91. Thousand Oaks, California : Sage
publications.
Carlson, R. Boyd, K. and Webb, D. 2004. “The Revision of the Declaration of Hel-
sinki: Past, Present and Future.” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
57(6): 695–713.
Corbetta, P. 2003. Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. First ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collabora-
tion with the World Health Organization (WHO). 2002. International Ethics
Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: CIOMS.
Creswell, J. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. First ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Darley, J. (1980) “The Importance of being earnest and ethical.” Contemporary
Psychology 25: 14-15.
De Laine, M. 2000. Fieldwork, Participation and Practice Ethics and in
Qualitative Research. First ed. London: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. 2005. “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of
Qualitative Research.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research,
edited by N. Lincoln and Y. Denzin, 1–33. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fabian, J. 1991. “Dilemmas in Critical Anthropology.” In Constructing Knowl-
edge: Authority and Critique in Social Science, edited by L. Pels and P.
Nencel, 180–202. London: Sage Publications.
Flyvbjerg, B. Landman, T. and Schram, S. 2012. Real Social Science: Applied Phro-
nesis. First ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, P. Costley, C. Armsby, P. and Trakakis, A. 2007. “Developing the Ethics of Worker-
Researchers Through Phronesis.” Teaching in Higher Education 12 (3): 365–75.
Gilligan, C. 2003. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Devel-
opment. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press.
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. First ed.
California: Sage Publications.
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. 1994. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.”
In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln,
191–215. Thousand Oaks California: Sage Publications.
Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J. 1997. The New Language of Qualitative Method.
First
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hammersley, M. 2009. “Against the Ethicists: On the Evils of Ethical
Regulations.”
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 12(3): 211–25.
Harkness, J. Lederer, S. and Wikler, D. 2001. “Laying Ethical Foundations for Clini-
cal Research.” Bulletine of the World Health Organization 79(4): 365–6.
Hazelgrove, J. 2002. “The Old Faith and the New Science: The Nuremberg Code
and Human Experimentation Ethics in Britain, 1946–73.” The Society for the
Social History of Medicine 15(1): 109–35.
Hill, M. Glaser, K. and Harden, J. 1995. “A Feminist Model for Ethical Decision
Making.” In Ethical Decision Making in Therapy: Feminist Perspectives, edited
by M. Glaser, K. Harden, and J. Hill, 284. New York: Guilford Press.
Holliday, A. 2013. “The Politics of Ethics in Diverse Cultural Settings: Colonising
the Centre Stage.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Educa- tion 43(4): 537–54.
Horrock, N. 1977. 80 Institutions Used in CIA Mind Studies: Admiral Turner
Tells Senator of Behaviour Control Research Bars Drug Testing Now.
http://archive. today/l34nl (accessed May 22, 2014).
Israel, M. and Hay, I. 2006. Research Ethics for Social Scientists: Between Ethical
Conduct and Regulatory Compliance. First ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
 Johnson, J. and Altheide, D. 2002. “‘Reflections on Professional Ethics’.” In Walk-
ing the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers, edited by
Will C. van den Hoonard, 59–69. Toronto: Univerity of Toronto.
Kellehear, A. 1993. The Unobtrusive Researcher. First ed. Sydney, Australia:
Allen and Unwin.
Kellner, F. “ ‘Yet Another Crisis Coming?: Coping with Guidelines from the Tri-
council’.” In Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Research-
ers, edited by Will C. van den Hoonard, 26–33. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Kimmel, A. 2007. Ethical Issues in Behavioural Research Basic and Applied Per-
spectives. Second ed. Massachussets: Blackwell Publishing.
Kitchener, K. 2000. Foundations of Ethical Practice, Research and Teaching in
Psy- chology. First ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kitchener, K. and Kitchener, R. 2009. “Social Science Research Ethics:
Historical and Philosophical Issues.” In The Handbook of Social Research
Ethics, edited by D. and Ginsberg, P. Mertens, 5–23. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, 2009. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.tufts.edu/10.4135/9781483348971
Kitchener, R. 2008. “Moral Philosophy.” In International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences, edited by W. A. Darity. New York: MacMillan.
Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Lapan, S. Quartaroli, M. and Riemer, F. 2011. Qualitative Research: An Introduc-
tion to Methods and Designs. Jossey-Bass Wiley: San Francisco.
Lather, P. 1992. “Critical Frames in Educational Research: Feminist and
Post-Structural Perspectives.” Theory into Practice 31(2): 87–99.
Letherby, G. 2003. Feminist Research in Theory and Practice. First ed.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lincoln, Y. 1995. “The Sixth Moment: Emerging Problems in Qualitative Research.”
Studies in Symbolic Interactionism (Studies in Symbolic Interactionism) 19:
37–55.
Lincoln, Y. 2005. “Institutional Review Boards and Methodological Conservatism:
The Challenge to and from Phenomenological Paradigms.” In The Sage Hand-
book of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Lincoln and Y. Denzin, 165–183.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mallardi, V. 2005. “The Origin of Informed Consent.” Acta Otorhinolaryngo-
logica Italica : Organo Ufficiale Della Societa Italiana di
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

Otorinolaringologia e Chirurgia Cervico-facciale 25(5): 312–27.

Markie, P. 2004. Rationalism and Empiricism.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ rationalism-empiricism/ (accessed November
15, 2014).
Mertens, M. 2014. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology (Fourth
Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moosa, D. 2013. “Challenges to Anonymity and Representation in Educational
Qualitative Research in a Small Community: A Reflection on my Research Jour-
ney.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 43(4):
483–95.
National Institutes of Health (1974) Laws Related to the Protection of Human
Sub- jects. Available: http://history.nih.gov/about/timelines/belmont.html.
Accessed on 15/7/2015
OHRP Archive Office for Human Research Protection. 1978. Office for Human
Research Protections (OHRP) Belmont Report. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/
archive/belmontArchive.html (accessed November 18, 2014).
O’Leary, Z. 2007. The Social Science Jargon Buster. First ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
 Parry, O. Gnich, W. and Platt, S. 2001.“Principles in Practice: Reflections on a
‘Post- positivist’ Approach to Evaluation Research.” Health Education
Research 16(2): 215–26.
Preissle, J. 2008. “Ethics.” In The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research
Meth- ods, edited by L. Given, 274–278. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. doi:
http:// dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
Ragin, C. and Amoroso, L. 2011. Constructing Social Research: The Unity and
Diversity of Method. First ed. London: Sage Publications.
Reverby, S. 2008. Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its
Leg- acy. http://www.examiningtuskegee.com/ (accessed May 22, 2014).
Ritzer, G. and Goodman, D. 2004. Sociological Theory. Sixth ed. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Russell Bernard, H. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. Fifth ed. Plymouth: AltaMira.
Shamim, F. and Qureshi, R. 2013. “Informed Consent in Educational Research in
the South: Tensions and Accommodations.” Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education 43(4): 464–82.
Shuster, E. 1997. “Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code.”
The New England Journal of Medicine 337: 1436–40.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/ full/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006.
Sikes, P. 2013. “Working Together for Critical Research Ethics.” Compare: A Jour-
nal of Comparative and International Education 43(4): 516–36.
van den Hoonard, W. C. 2008. “Ethics Review Process.” In The Sage Encyclope-
dia of Qualiative Research, edited by L. Given, 281–84. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Velasquez, M. Andre, C. Shanks, S. and Meyer, M. 1990. Justice and Fairness.
http:// www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/justice.html (accessed January 1,
2014).
Vollmann, J. and Winau, R. 1996. “Informed Consent in Human Experimentation
Before the Nuremberg Code.” British Medical Journal 313(7070): 1445–9.
Walter, M. 2013. “The Nature of Social Science Research.” In Social Research
Meth- ods, edited by M. Walter, 1–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weber, M. 1949. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: The Free
Press. Weindling, P. 2001. “The Origins of Informed Consent: The International
Scientific Commission on Medical War Crimes and the Nuremberg.” Bulletin of the
His-
tory of Medicine 75(1): 37–71.
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

Willis, J. 2007. Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical

Approaches. First ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
World Medical Association. 1964. WMA Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical Prin-
ciples for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.
http://www.wma.net/ en/30publications/10policies/b3/ (accessed November 18,
2014).
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.

Th
is
pa
ge
int
en
tio
na
lly
lef
t
bl
an